Hot answers tagged

79

Despite common misconception, both Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were ceded to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, via the Treaty of Nanking and the Convention of Peking, respectively. London was under no legal obligation to return them to China. However, most of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong actually consists of the New Territories. That was ...


73

Before answering, just to take issue with the premise of the question. Yes, France received a permanent seat on the Security Council, not to mention her own occupation zones in Germany and Austria. But France was not accorded a status anything like the "Big Three" in most other respects. From May 1943 De Gaulle was operating independently from French ...


49

First of all, as the definition you cited states, The term empire does not have a precise definition. The Aztec Empire was large by the standards of their time in their part of the world. It dominated the Valley of Mexico and was a major power in Mesoamerica generally. Land size is not really a indicator of imperial status per se, but in context, the ...


43

British policy on the continent has traditionally been to maintain the balance of power (this is also really a general European thing). This amounted to shifting alliances all over the continent. Though France and Britain are "traditional" enemies (as neighbours were wont to be in Europe), they certainly hadn't been at war for anywhere near "close to 1000 ...


40

Italy's main issue was its enmity with Austria-Hungary, Germany's main ally. That made Italy the "odd man out" in the so-called Triple Alliance with the other two. Italy had joined (reluctantly) with Germany out of a fear of France. This occurred when France and Britain concluded an alliance that made Britain responsible for the mutual defense of the ...


36

The answers to 1, 2 are very simple. The Soviet Union presented itself as a "communist paradise." That is, a country where life was better than in capitalist countries. This was the main justification for communist power and social order. People traveling abroad could immediately see that this was not the case. When this had become evident to a sufficient ...


34

The attitude in the early 19 century was somewhat different. No one considered these wars as wars "against France", I mean against the French people. These were the wars against Napoleon, and earlier the wars against the revolutionary government. So there was no notion that "France should be punished". Many French emigres were on the coalition side. It is ...


30

The Korean War and the Vietnam War are fundamentally very different conflicts. With the former, South Korea was unambiguously invaded by North Korea in an explicit war of conquest. Due to lucky political circumstances, United Nations was able to sanction a military operation to defend South Korea. The Security Council, Having determined that the ...


27

Everyone learnt from the Korean War and wished to avoid a repeat of a bloody direct Chinese-American fighting. At the onset of the escalated American involvement in 1965, Beijing made it clear where the Chinese line in the sand is: [I]f the Americans went beyond the bombing of the North and used ground forces to invade North Vietnam, China would have to ...


26

The main reason for the status of France after the WW2 was Churchill's position. Soft power and colonies are important, but nothing prevented the US & SU (both with strong anti-colonialist sentiment) from breaking up the French colonial empire. The war contribution of France was mostly in denying Germany the use of the French navy. The rest (resistance,...


26

I agree with much of Semaphore's answer, which shows that actually Britain and France were not in a state of perpetual war. But I think your question really relates to "What changed?" so I'll try to answer that. Firstly, the end of the Napoleonic era. The Battle of Waterloo and following months were the end of the Napoleonic wars, and the end of the "Big" ...


25

Because China was actually pretty far from India. For most of the past millennia, China and India were not "neighbouring countries" in any meaningful sense of the word. Most Chinese empires did not actually stretch all the way to the Indian subcontinent. It seems you're considering China and India based on their modern borders, but that is misleading: ...


21

Yes they did. The Treaty of Good Neighbourship and Friendly Cooperation qualifies as a "peace treaty"; see preamble and article 1 of the Polish text of the treaty. The treaty was signed in 1991 and went into force on 16 January 1992. It did not say specifically "we have had a war until today, but since tomorrow we are at peace", but it would hardly make ...


19

Here is the map of colonial possessions by 1945: The French possessions are in blue. As you can see, France controlled a territory comparable to the US, USSR, British and Chinese. Adding them meant adding representatives of a large portion of the world's population to the security council.


19

Short answer: points 4-6 were unreasonable to the point of being unacceptable, because they gave Vienna so much power over Serbia that it amounted to a forfeiture of Serbian independence. This isn't unique to the time period or Serbia. Countries generally are not happy to subjugate themselves to a hated enemy. Whether they could afford to resist is another ...


19

Gibraltar was defensible, but Hong Kong was not. In the 1990s, the distance from the UK would have made Hong Hong impossible to defend. Also, Hong Kong is primarily occupied by Chinese, unlike Gibraltar, which is occupied by UK citizens, many of whom are soldiers. Gibraltar is a fortress, and it is relatively close to the UK and hence easily suppliable. ...


17

I have read your question as "Has a country ever won a war, and still "lost" territory, and if so, why?" One example was the Austro-Sardinian War, otherwise known as the Second War of Italian Independence. Sardinia (Piedmont) won the war. She did so with the help of France, under Napoleon III. She had to cede her holdings of Savoy and Nice to France to ...


16

First of all, France's goal is not to "undermine its relationship with Turkey" as you have implied. Instead, this is a product of France's policy of recognising what happened during WWI as a genocide. I believe the most important part of your question is why has France been the most assertive when it comes to recognition of the Armenian genocide. This comes ...


16

Some examples from WW2: Poland was on the winning side but lost the eastern half of the country to the USSR. Yes they got compensated by German territories, but we could have some fun debating the relevance of that. Britain came out a winner but it's impoverishment was a significant factor leading to withdrawal from the Empire.


15

China (at the time) was one of the "Big Four" Allies (France was not) during World War II. (The "United Nations" originally meant the united, anti-Axis nations.) It's true that the "Big Three" were the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, but there were a number of much weaker, plausible "number four" states, including China, France, and Poland (the ...


15

I find interesting that many answers just belong to "armchair generals" that point only to the military power, logistics, *1 but forget to mention the issues that could lead to a war in the first place. Remember, war is the continuation of politics.... First of all, I would point the main issue would be noticing how these issues affect the internal ...


15

Yes. Tsar Nicholas II issued a manifesto on 19 July (i.e. 1 August, New Style) which is considered Russia's declaration of war against Germany. Made in response to the German notice, it was read to a crowd from the balcony of the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg at 3 p.m. the next day. I can't locate the original text, but here's a translated excerpt: ...


14

The reason is an unresolved territorial dispute over four islets, annexed by the Red Army during the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. In Russia the dispute is known as the Kuril Islands dispute, and in Japan as the Northern Territories dispute. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have recently restarted ...


13

By naming Russian mobilisation as the initial aggression. One needs to look no further than the German declaration of war itself. That document succinctly laid out Berlin's position that the Russian mobilisation was an existential threat as well as an act of aggression towards Germany. Presenting Germany as a peaceful mediator, it claims that: [Russia]...


13

Let me add a few details to Semaphore's answer. One is that the Vietnam war actually ended with the North Vietnam invasion of South Vietnam. This happened soon after the US withdrawal, and in violation of the peace treaty. The UN Security Council could not react properly because the Soviets had the right of veto in it. (As it could not react in 2014 on the ...


12

It is easy to explain why Italy didn't join the war: they had little to gain from it, maybe they also didn't feel prepared. Alliances are always theory and a country can refuse to be dragged into a conflict with powers that are much stronger than it. The question why Italy later still decided to join is more difficult. This website gives the following ...


12

Borders Post-war Polish borders were agreed upon in Teheran (1943) and finalized in Yalta (1945) by the "Big 3". The land was taken from Germany on the grounds of Germany having started the war, to weaken it so that it would never be able to do that again. Population The Poles did not do the ethnic cleansing of those lands singlehandedly - at first the ...


12

The wording of the question betrays the bias of hindsight. The idea that Hitler could have been brought to heel by decisive collective action in the mid-1930s has tremendous appeal now. But at the time rigidly upholding the terms of an unworkable 20-year-old treaty would have seemed to most people to invite disaster not avert it. Breaching the treaty It ...


12

Legalities Modern India evolved out of the transitionary Dominion of India, which was created from territories of the British Raj. It is important to note that neither Bhutan nor Nepal were princely states under British India. In Nepal's case, the Himalayan kingdom successfully negotiated a Treaty of Friendship in 1923, in which Britain recognised Nepalese ...


12

As the commenters have stated, there are several reasons "Persia" isn't one empire, but a succession of empires controlling the same area, more or less in the period. Rome under the Republic and Empire was a single continuous government. The various Persian governments tended to get knocked around in head to head competition with Mediterranean powers. ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible